I like that Crains gave the last word to viewpoints that are more informed than Walden’s. (Note: If the link above to the article takes you to a “subscription required” page, try Googling the article’s headline, “On Walden pond, bike lanes sink.”)

Robber Baron

The relevant quote from the Crain’s article:

“Bike lanes and infrastructure must be one part, although a small part,
of moving toward more sustainable transportation alternatives. We are
spending too much time dealing with a form of transportation that is
appropriate for only a small number of people, and ignoring larger and
more important parts of the sustainability puzzle. And, we are spending a
lot of money building lanes that few people use when we are making
really tough choices about cutting education and social-benefit programs
that give access to food, health care, and job training.”

Who will think of the poor people who aren’t getting proper schooling, health care, and nutrition because of all those damn bike lanes? Jim Walden really truly cares.

If you heed Joe’s warning below and want to avoid the infuriating drivel in the City Journal piece, but are still curious as to how bad it is, here’s the comment I posted at that site. It put me into my old form: caps locking all over the place, rebutting fallacies with mere personal experience information (of course that’s all Herbert London relied on), etc.:

This is riddled through and through with statements
that are thoroughly untrue!

One by one, here are JUST the ones I know of; I’m
sure there are more:

1. “The bike paths, or so the thinking went, would
encourage more people to ride bicycles to work, thus lessening traffic.” This
was NOT the thinking. NYC knew full well that overwhelmingly, bike commuters
are people who would otherwise take transit, not drive. The main thinking
behind the bike lanes was safety.

2. “Car congestion is intense wherever bike lanes
or pedestrian plazas exist.” “Wherever?” Are you completely crazy, or just a
liar? That is complete and total fabrication. Times Square and Herald Square
may be congested (as they always were). In many places across the city with
bike lanes/ped plazas, the same thing applies; in others, car congestion simply
is NOT intense. In fact, just for starters, look at Broadway BETWEEN Times
Square and Herald Square–both areas and the space between have both bike lanes
and ped plaza–and there is NO traffic congestion, even during rush hour. And
there are dozens of other counterexamples.

3. “In reducing space for cars, the bicycle lanes
have caused even worse traffic delays than before.” Made up. It is unfortunate
that someone as educated as London subscribes to the utterly debunked mob-myth
that car traffic follows the same physics as water falling. Water when it’s
path is blocked, goes down the nearest path of less resistance. TRAFFIC DOES
NOT DO THAT. Morons have to stop propagating that myth.

4. “As for the pedestrian plazas . . . more often
their chairs stand empty.” A patent LIE. I pass SIX of them every weekday at
rush hour (and often also in the middle of the day) and they are mostly FULL.
And who gives a F what percentage of them are tourists? (Not that London knows
that data.)

5. “most New Yorkers resent the usurpation of road
space.” Completely contradicted by actual opinion polls, that have been, you
know, actually DONE.

6. “at First Avenue, where both sides of the street
have bicycle lanes” An utter LIE.

Also, how many bike commuters do you EXPECT to see
as far downtown as Allen St. from 5:00 to 5:30? You would have seen a lot more
if you had watched from 5:30 to 6:00 or 6:00 to 6:30. Or watched at a spot in
one of the BUSINESS districts, you moron!

1-6 above are only the claims that I know facts
contradict. There are other claims that I believe are false (e.g., that London
retailers don’t like congestion pricing–I believe they are actually doing
better because of it, because of better foot traffic), but I don’t have the
facts in front of me to directly contradict them.

It is a shame when someone with credentials as
impressive as London’s pontificates publicly about something he knows little
about.

Anonymous

The problem with Herb London, “Lifelong NYer” type commenters, etc. is that any rational discussion of transportation has been undermined by the Culture Wars: cars are The American Way (even if they’re taxpayer subsidized on every level) and any kind of change is (bike lanes, market pricing, etc.) is Unamerican. I loved the comment comparing traffic jams to bread lines under communism, which is a much more accurate and compelling metaphor than the normal water-pipe thinking.

dporpentine

Isn’t it news someplace other than Streetsblog that a vice chancellor at CUNY and a former DOT commissioner was, in fact, a party to a suit against the city–and more specifically, against her own old office? And that the constantly quoted lawyer representing that group apparently lied about that fact? Why does Walden’s every cough make for a Brooklyn Paper article, while this . . . ? (I mean, I know why, but it’s still kind of amazing.)

Mr. London says this:
“Any EMT driver will tell you that if you have a heart attack at, say, 47th Street and Broadway, an ambulance or fire truck can’t get to you readily.”

There is a firehouse at the northeast corner of 48th and 8th (this firehouse is called 54 and 4).

To get to a heart-attack victim at 47th and Broadway, the rescue vehicle driver would have to exit the firehouse, make a quick right turn onto 48th (which goes east), go one block, make a turn onto Broadway (the right lane is open to cars and trucks), go straight another block right up to the pedestrian plaza that begins at 47th, and stop, right where the victim is waiting.

I was curious, so I walked the route this morning about 9:45 (a little after rushhour(s)). Traffic on 48th was negligible, with a few cars stopped only at the red light and going straight through on green. Traffic on Broadway was non-existent.

I am no emergency-vehicle expert, but I can’t imagine why a fire truck or ambulance would take more than a couple of minutes, perhaps less, to make this trip.

If your victim was, say, at 46th or 45th, rescues could simply sprint or walk briskly through the pedestrian plaza, which would take maybe another half-minute, just as they must do when they must stop their vehicle anywhere short a victim, whether that’s because the victim is in a high-rise apartment, on the 3rd floor of Macy’s, or in an off-road area of a park.

Just saying …

http://brooklynspoke.wordpress.com Doug G.

We already know what happens if you have a heart attack and there’s gridlock: be thankful that courteous and nimble cyclists are more willing and able than drivers to move out of an ambulance’s way. If only every major street had a separated bike lane emergency vehicles would have better chances of reaching the people they serve.

Station44025

It’s likely someone requiring emergency services will have been hit by a car, though, so they should be right there on a road. I’m sure Macy’s retail sales would be better (and people in need of emergency services would be safer) if people were allowed to actually drive right into the store rather than being forced to walk by the zealots that run that place.